While going over Parshas HaMann, I could not help but remember my days in Yeshivah K'Tanah dreamily wondering about the flavors I would fancy for that day's lunch. Looking at it from a somewhat (I hope) more mature perspective.... I find myself doing the same thing! There is some fantasy-like enchantment that the story of the Mann seems to arouse within us (or at least in me) that perhaps can use a little clarifying. Though my taste has changed, the magical notion of the variety of flavors of the Mann still inspires me to daydream....
What seems so unreal about the Mann is not so much the lack of scientific explanation for the phenomenon, for Yitzias Mitzrayim and much of our history has had many equally impressive miracles. What is so unique about the fabulous flavors of the Mann is that it seems very uncharacteristic of our Torah which speaks of " פת במלח תאכל" - "Bread & salt you shall eat." To compliment the Mann about its unlimited tongue tantalizing potential seems, at best, somewhat materialistic if not absolutely childish!
To make matters worse, Chazal tell us "לא ניתנה תורה אלא לאוכלי המן" - That the Torah was specifically given to the people who ate the Mann. This seems like an outright contradiction to the minimalistic approach of acquiring the Torah through pas bamelach!
Why was it necessary to provide such a surreal fantasy-land experience for the sustenance of Klall Yisrael in the midbar? Though one may argue to say that Hashem wanted to prevent future complaints about the food, we know the complaints continued later anyway so this was probably not G-D's intent.
The R' Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin writes (צדקת הצדיק רסב) that there are different forms of 'food' for the three parts of a person; גוף, נפש, ונשמה . The גוף - the body, gets its sustenance from simple matter, such as carbohydrates, proteins and other nutrients found in regular food. The נשמה - the lofty and holy soul, is sustained by providing it with spirituality, such as Limud HaTorah and fulfilling Mitzvos.
However the נפש, which is (actually quite hard to describe) the energy of life that actually makes us feel lively or 'dead', is fed by something else entirely. Its sustenance is...... PLEASURE. This is illustrated well by the difference of liveliness felt in ourselves when he hear wonderful news or, G-D forbid, a tragedy. An even better example of this, though, is of two patients recovering in a hospital. Both can be receiving the same exact nutritional diet prescribed by their physicians. However, we know that the patient who enjoys his meal or is humored with good company will almost definitely recover quicker and better than his counterpart. This is due to the vital nutrient of pleasure offered to the נפש.
[It is for this reason, says R' Tzadok, that the joy and pleasure associated with mitzvos or aveiros have such an impact upon us. We are feeding and living off of those acts! In this manner, any aveirah we draw pleasure from has the similar severity to eating non-kosher food; timtum halev. It is because of this, that yesurim - pain, has the cleansing attribute that we call "kapparah'. The suffering one has, G-D forbid, actually and noticeably diminishes that liveliness. In this regard even a minor frustration, is, on a smaller scale, considered a form of 'death'. The implications of this add great importance to simchas hamitzvos and kabolas yesurim (lo aleinu).]
This may explain the need for salt at the table of even the most simple of meals. We cannot ignore the needs of the spirit for at least some level of basic taste and pleasure in our food. Therefore the Mishnah includes salt - פת במלח - even in the simplest diet.
With this in mind we can understand the uncharacteristic importance placed on the taste [and the many other wonders (see the medrashim)] of the mann. Since the mann was not food made of regular physical matter, to feed the body, as chazal refer to it as the nourishment of the Angels, it had to offer an enormous amount of pleasure, to energize and enliven the spirit. To keep Klall Yisrael alive in the vast and somewhat depressing desert the mann had to nourish their נפש without ANY dissappointment! Any boredome or displeasure would greatly effect its ability to nourish them.
Perhaps this great level of enjoyment and happiness, which was free from any physical properties, was the reason for לא ניתנה תורה אלא לאוכלי המן . This was the true fulfillment of אין השכינה שורה, אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה - G-D's presence resides only within an environment of spiritual joy of mitzvos.
Enjoy your Shabbos!
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
BO - Pidyon Haben
The passuk in this week’s parsha (13:1), says קדש לי כל בכור - We learn from here the mitzvah of pidyon haben. As the passuk says the first baby boy to be born is holy and belongs to Hashem. Later in the parsha, (pasuk יג) we learn that one can redeem his son with five סלעים (silver coins) from a kohen. The boy is thereby no longer considered holy or 'belonging' to Hashem.
The Rema ( יו'ד ס' ש'ה סעיף י ) quotes a Rivash that says, the father cannot assign a שליח – an agent, to redeem his son from the kohen. Many achronim were very disturbed by this ruling. They asked, that we know that in all other aspects of the Torah one is able to appoint a שליח, so why should pidyon haben be different?
The Shach and Taz were among those achronim who opposed the ruling of the Rema, and they indeed rule that one may appoint a שליח to perform the mitzvah of pidyon haben.
The Chasam Sofer (Yorah Deah 293), writes that there is a significant difference between the mitzvah of pidyon haben and all others. The mitzvah of pidyon haben is a commemoration of the plague of the firstborn in Egypt. The Jewish bichorim, (firstborn) were saved, while the Egyptian’s were killed. The Torah tells us that this plague was carried out by Hashem Himself, without any angelic agents. As it says in the Haggadda, ani vilo malach ani vilo shileyach. Therefore, in performing this mitzvah there is reason for us as well, not to use an agent, but rather to do it ourselves.
The Aruch Hashulchan (Yorah Deah ש'ה) offers two other explanations for the ruling of the Rema. First, the passuk explicitly says תפדה - you should redeem. Whenever the Torah explicitly says one should do a mitzvah, one may not appoint an agent. Secondly, the gemarah makes a drasha connecting the mitzvah of pidyon haben with the mitzvah of oleh regel, which is a mitzvah שבגופו – one that is performed with one’s actual body. The Aruch Hashulchan says that the Torah wants to connect the mitzvah of oleh regel to the mitzvah of pidyon haben in this regard as well. Just as one cannot appoint an agent to perform the mitzvah of oleh regel on his behalf, so too one may not appoint an agent to redeem his son. Although the gemarah uses this drasha to teach us something else, we can add to the drasha and say that there is another similarity that the Torah wants to draw upon.
I wanted to offer a new approach in understanding the p’sak of the Rema, and answer the question of the achronim. The Sefer Hachinuch explains all of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos. In his explanation of the mitzvah of pidyon haben, (מצוה יח ), he writes, that the intention of this mitzvah is to remind us that everything that we have comes from Hashem. He similarly explains that the mitzvah of bikurim (offering of the first fruit) is to serve the same purpose. Often, after a person toils very hard to produce, there is a natural pride he may take in the fruit of his labor, especially in the very first product of his efforts. At that point one is vulnerable, and may come to forget that after all his hard work, still, everything comes from Hashem. To counter this possible outcome, Hashem gave us these mitzvos of pidyon haben and bikurim to give us the opportunity to thank Him at this crucial time. In summation, the mitzvah of pidyon haben is to remind us that everything we have comes from Hashem, and to thank Him for giving it to us.
Based on this explanation, we can now understand the p’sak of the Rama. Although with regard to most circumstances one may appoint an agent to act on his behalf, regarding giving thanks and showing gratitude one may not. If one would be permitted to redeem his son or offer his bikurim through an agent he would be missing the entire point of the mitzvah!
We find this idea as well by the bracha of modim in the shimoneh esray. The shileyach tzibor in his repetition of the shmoneh esray is motze (fulfills the obligation of) the congregation in davening. However the bracha of modim everyone must say to themselves, as the chazan cannot be motze them. The אבודרהם explains, that the bracha of modim is the bracha of thanking Hashem, and as mentioned above one cannot use a שליח to act on his behalf for showing gratitude to Hashem.
Gut Shabbos!
{R.F.}
The Rema ( יו'ד ס' ש'ה סעיף י ) quotes a Rivash that says, the father cannot assign a שליח – an agent, to redeem his son from the kohen. Many achronim were very disturbed by this ruling. They asked, that we know that in all other aspects of the Torah one is able to appoint a שליח, so why should pidyon haben be different?
The Shach and Taz were among those achronim who opposed the ruling of the Rema, and they indeed rule that one may appoint a שליח to perform the mitzvah of pidyon haben.
The Chasam Sofer (Yorah Deah 293), writes that there is a significant difference between the mitzvah of pidyon haben and all others. The mitzvah of pidyon haben is a commemoration of the plague of the firstborn in Egypt. The Jewish bichorim, (firstborn) were saved, while the Egyptian’s were killed. The Torah tells us that this plague was carried out by Hashem Himself, without any angelic agents. As it says in the Haggadda, ani vilo malach ani vilo shileyach. Therefore, in performing this mitzvah there is reason for us as well, not to use an agent, but rather to do it ourselves.
The Aruch Hashulchan (Yorah Deah ש'ה) offers two other explanations for the ruling of the Rema. First, the passuk explicitly says תפדה - you should redeem. Whenever the Torah explicitly says one should do a mitzvah, one may not appoint an agent. Secondly, the gemarah makes a drasha connecting the mitzvah of pidyon haben with the mitzvah of oleh regel, which is a mitzvah שבגופו – one that is performed with one’s actual body. The Aruch Hashulchan says that the Torah wants to connect the mitzvah of oleh regel to the mitzvah of pidyon haben in this regard as well. Just as one cannot appoint an agent to perform the mitzvah of oleh regel on his behalf, so too one may not appoint an agent to redeem his son. Although the gemarah uses this drasha to teach us something else, we can add to the drasha and say that there is another similarity that the Torah wants to draw upon.
I wanted to offer a new approach in understanding the p’sak of the Rema, and answer the question of the achronim. The Sefer Hachinuch explains all of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos. In his explanation of the mitzvah of pidyon haben, (מצוה יח ), he writes, that the intention of this mitzvah is to remind us that everything that we have comes from Hashem. He similarly explains that the mitzvah of bikurim (offering of the first fruit) is to serve the same purpose. Often, after a person toils very hard to produce, there is a natural pride he may take in the fruit of his labor, especially in the very first product of his efforts. At that point one is vulnerable, and may come to forget that after all his hard work, still, everything comes from Hashem. To counter this possible outcome, Hashem gave us these mitzvos of pidyon haben and bikurim to give us the opportunity to thank Him at this crucial time. In summation, the mitzvah of pidyon haben is to remind us that everything we have comes from Hashem, and to thank Him for giving it to us.
Based on this explanation, we can now understand the p’sak of the Rama. Although with regard to most circumstances one may appoint an agent to act on his behalf, regarding giving thanks and showing gratitude one may not. If one would be permitted to redeem his son or offer his bikurim through an agent he would be missing the entire point of the mitzvah!
We find this idea as well by the bracha of modim in the shimoneh esray. The shileyach tzibor in his repetition of the shmoneh esray is motze (fulfills the obligation of) the congregation in davening. However the bracha of modim everyone must say to themselves, as the chazan cannot be motze them. The אבודרהם explains, that the bracha of modim is the bracha of thanking Hashem, and as mentioned above one cannot use a שליח to act on his behalf for showing gratitude to Hashem.
Gut Shabbos!
{R.F.}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)